STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY M. ALPRIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Mr. ALPRIN. Good morning, sir. No; I would not say that we would not want that authority, but we do not have it presently for offenses other than narcotics. We do not have it for the District specifically, but we do have it peripherally, and for gambling also. Finally, I believe that Federal authorities can seize vehicles used in national firearm violations. Those are the only areas federally, or anywhere else that I know of, where vehicles used in the commission of crimes can be actually seized for purposes other than evidence, kept for evidence and then returned. Senator STEVENSON. I know one jurisdiction that has one, that I wrote in Illinois, in 1965, which did set up procedures, as well as the authority for the confiscation of the vehicles used in a wide range of serious offenses. It just strikes me as being a little inconsistent to say that they may be confiscated in the case of narcotics violations, but not for murder, kidnaping, burglary, and bombings which are becoining increasingly present. Mr. ALPRIN. Certainly we would take the position that for all of those crimes, at least in most cases, it certainly would be a deterrent to the commission of the crime to be able to seize or confiscate the vehicle that was used. I think in preparing this legislation, we did not want to go further than the Federal law, but certainly, it is something that, from a law enforcement purpose, would be very valuable. Senator STEVENSON. I do not know that we have to take up these other possibilities in connection with this bill—but you might want to consider a broader bill. I for one would be very receptive to any such suggestion, and would also volunteer the advice that you take a look at the good law of Illinois, if you would like, to get the benefit of our experience. I understand from law enforcement authorities in Illinois that the law which we did write and pass, in 1965, has been very helpfulparticularly in the larger cities. Mr. WATT. We will certainly do that. Senator STEVENSON. I remember one of the difficulties at the time was with lienholders against vehicles used in the commission of offenses, and with owners of vehicles stolen by the offenders. How do you, in this proposal, make provision to protect the innocent lienholders and owners of vehicles used by others in the commission of narcotics violations? Mr. WATT. The draft of the legislation provides that if there is a bona fide lien against the property, the government of the District of Columbia in this case may make payment of the lien and retain the property, or the property may be disposed of by public auction, the proceeds of which shall be used first for the payment of the expenses, which are incident to the forfeiture, secondly to the payment of any such liens, and any remainder, of course, would be deposited in the District's general fund. It goes on to say to the extent necessary, liens against property so forfeited shall, on good cause shown by the lienholder, be transferred from the proceeds of the sale of the property. Elsewhere, there is a reference in the act, which reads, "No conveyance shall be forfeited under the provisions of this act by reason of any act or omission established by the owner thereof to have been committed by any person other than such owner, while such conveyance was unlawfully in the possession of a person other than the owner in violation of criminal laws," so there is also that protection. Mr. Chairman, in other words, if the owner can establish that the vehicle was unlawfully possessed, he is protected against forfeiture. Senator STEVENSON. The burden would be on the owner? Mr. WATT. On the owner in this case, and, finally, there is the provision for the paying up of the lien, either directly by the District Government, or through the sale of the property and satisfaction. of the lien interest. Senator STEVENSON. Your impression is that lienholders in the District feel that they would have adequate protection under this provision? Do you have any comments from lenders in the District? Mr. WATT. I know of no comment with regard to this particular provision, although it is my belief that the protections, which are proposed to be established in this legislation, are the same as those which are now established for vehicles seized in connection with gambling violations, and I am quite sure patterned after the Federal law, which applies in similar cases. Senator STEVENSON. Turning to title VI, could you tell us a little bit more about how you utilize Police Reserve Corps volunteers, and intend to do so in the future, under the authority of this provision? Mr. ALPRIN. Presently, Senator, the Reserve Corps helps our officers in such ways as to free the officer for performance of other duties more generally in line with crime control. For example, traffic control, stadium control, when there is a football game being played, school crossing guards, station clerks, that type of activity, and, generally, they are used in such a way so that other regular officers of the Department can be used for crime control. Reserve officers presently do not carry weapons, and they are not used in the traditional sense of officers being used to patrol the streets and prevent crime. The authority contained in this proposal is not intended to alter that. Mr. WATT. Quite specifically, Mr. Chairman, in the attachment to my statement, there is the reference to the fact that Reserve Police would not be used for patrol duty in any high crime areas, they would not be permitted to participate in any search or seizure, and they would not be utilized for police duty requiring a high level of qualified police performance. So we have both the indication that they would be used for certain kinds of more routine police functions, as Mr. Alprin has referred to, and, specifically, would not be used for a variety of assignments which require high level of skills, or would expose the man to the kinds of dangers to which a more appropriately qualified police officer would be exposed. Senator STEVENSON. Does the District now have the authority to permit these volunteers to carry firearms? Mr. ALPIN. To my knowledge, Chief Wilson has prohibited, in a recent order, the reserve officers from carrying firearms. The question came up, also recently, as to whether or not they should be permitted to carry them, and we gave the opinion, because they were not police officers, they should not have the authority. The fact that the Chief has prohibited, I suspect, indicates he could have permitted it also, but he has prohibited it. Senator STEVENSON. I am wondering whether this expands the authority. Mr. WATT. Section 602 (b) of the act would vest in the City Council the authority to make rules and regulations generally relating to this title of the bill, including provisions which would prohibit, permit, regulate, and control the possession and carrying in use by reserve officers of weapons, including firearms. So the City Council would have the rulemaking authority which would be administered by the Chief. Senator STEVENSON. The staff has suggested it might be helpful to us to just know whether the District feels in its opinion that it does now have the authority to permit the Volunteer Corps officers to carry firearms, so that we know whether we are expanding upon that. Mr. WATT. Let me check that specifically, and report to you within a day or two on it, for insertion in the record. (See letter of January 11, 1972, from Graham W. Watt, assistant to the Commissioner of the District of Columbia to Senator Stevenson on p. 110.) Senator STEVENSON. As to title VIII-we have received testimony in our hearings on the Department of Corrections in the District, which lends a lot of support to your request. We do not anticipate any difficulty or controversy over that pro vision of the bill. Title XI, you say, is technical and perfecting amendments in existing law. Mr. WATT. It does contain one item of substance with regard to the carrying of knives. Our existing law, the District of Columbia Code, prohibits possession with the intent to use unlawfully against another person a knife or a blade longer than three inches. Title XI would delete this three-inch specification so as to provide that possession of a knife of any length when coupled with the intent of unlawful use against another person, shall constitute an offense. Senator STEVENSON. I suppose it is the unlawful intent that is the saving provision in this proposal. Mr. WATT. Yes, sir. Senator STEVENSON. People will not have to be worried about commiting an offense if they possess a pocketknife. It has to be coupled with the intent to use that pocketknife to commit a crime? Mr. WATT. Yes, sir. Mr. ALPRIN. This is not the simple possession of the weapons statute. This requires the intent of the use. Senator STEVENSON. All right. Let's move on, Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Alprin. Mr. ALPRIN. It is a pleasure. Senator STEVENSON. We have one more bill-S. 2208. S. 2208 Mr. WATT. Yes; Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 2208, a bill designed to improve certain laws relating to the regulation of insurance in the District of Columbia. S. 2208 is identical to legislation submitted to the Congress by the Commissioner on June 1, 1971, and I would ask that a copy of that transmittal be made a part of the record. Senator STEVENSON. It will be made a part of the record. (The documents follow :) The PRESIDENT, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: The Commissioner of the District of Columbia has the honor to submit herewith for the consideration of Congress a draft bill "To improve the laws relating to the regulation of insurance in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The purpose of the proposed legislation is to amend existing law in the District of Columbia relating to insurance in order to provide a greater degree of protection to consumers from financial loss due to company insolvency; to increase the limitation on the amount of group term life insurance than can be issued in the District; and to increase the amount of a contract with the District Government for which a bond is required. Title I is based on model legislation prepared by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners which has been adopted or is currently under active consideration in most States. This title would establish a post-assessment insurance guaranty fund to be administered by a nonprofit unincorporated legal entity known as the District of Columbia Insurance Guaranty Association. The Association would be obligated, in the event an insurance company became insolvent, to pay all covered claims of the policyholders of the insolvent company. The Association would have the same rights, duties, and obligations in regard to adjusting and settling claims that the individual company would have had if it had not become insolvent. Funds for the insolvency fund as well as for operating expenses would be provided through annual assessments to be levied on each member insurance company. All companies licensed to transact business in the District of Columbia and writing the lines covered in the act would be required to belong to the Association. The assessments would be computed proportional to the amount of insurance each member company writes in the District of Columbia. However, no member company would be assessed an amount greater than 2 percent of that member's net direct written premiums in any one year. The Association would be administered by a Board of Directors chosen by the member companies and subject to the approval of the Commissioner. The Board would adopt a plan of operation, also subject to approval by the Commissioner. In addition to its role as financial guarantor for policyholders, the Association would have the responsibility of aiding in the detection and prevention of insolvencies. The Board, upon majority vote, would notify the Commissioner of any hazardous financial conditions of any member company; request the Commissioner to have an examination conducted at the Association's expense; and to make general reports and recommendations to the Commissioner on matters relating to the concerns of the Association. The Commissioner would inform the Association of insolvencies within three days of receipt of a determination of the insolvency. The Commissioner would be authorized to require the Association to notify all the insureds of the insolvent company of their rights under this title. The Commissioner would also report to the Board of Directors when he has cause to believe an insolvency is about to occur among any member company. The title would provide for the termination of the District of Columbia Insurance Guaranty Association in the event that legislation is enacted creating a national guaranty fund with benefits and protections as favorable as those that would be provided policyholders under this title, or in the event a voluntary plan is created which provides equally favorable safeguards to policyholders. The Commissioner feels that it is imperative that protection against company insolvencies be afforded District consumers as soon as possible. At present there is no such protection and although the District's record in regard to insolvencies 71-472 O-72-9 of companies domiciled here has been remarkable, we cannot fail to plan for the possibility of insolvencies occurring in a company operating nationwide which has District policyholders. The Commissioner feels that the approach taken in this title will provide adequate and efficient protection to the public, both in terms of the amount in the fund and the method of paying out claims. Title II of the proposed legislation would amend the “Life Insurance Act” to increase from $200,000 to $1,000,000 the amount of paid-up capital stock each domestic capital stock life insurance company is required to have in order to transact business in the District of Columbia. This amount would provide greater protection to consumers and would recognize the effects of inflation on capitalization requirements for insurance companies. The capital and surplus requirements for life insurance companies were last revised in 1964 by Public Law 88-556. Title III would amend the "Life Insurance Act" to increase the amount of coverage that is available under group term life insurance to maximums of $25,000, $75,000, and 300 percent of compensation with the varying maximums based on compensation. These proposed amount limitations would make District requirements comparable to other State laws. Title IV would amend the Fire and Casualty Act to increase the amount of paid-up capital stock and surplus required of all stock companies licensed under the Fire and Casualty Act from $300,000 to $600,000; to increase the surplus requirement for domestic mutual companies from $150,000 to $300,000; and to increase the amount for foreign mutuals from $200,000 to $400,000. Title IV would also increase the surplus requirement for mutual companies issuing nonassessable policies from $300,000 to $600,000. The increased requirements would apply only to new companies wishing to be licensed in the District and not to companies continuously transacting business here provided there is no change in the scope of their operations. The capital and surplus requirements under the Fire and Casualty Act were determined in 1940 and have not been revised since then. Adequacy of capital and surplus requirements is essential to the protection of policyholders. It is particularly important in the first few years of a company's operations when the company is most subject to the hazards of financial inexperience. The amendments proposed in titles II and IV of this draft legislation would act as a safeguard against financially inadequate companies entering the local market. Title V would increase from $2,000 to $10,000 the amount of a contract with the District Government for which a bond is required. The Commissioner feels that the $2,000 requirement is unnecessarily low and that an increase to $10,000 would be more in line with present costs and also would provide small contractors with a greater opportunity of dealing with the District Government without being required to be bonded in contracts involving less than $10,000. The Commissioner of the District of Columbia feels that the above proposals represent some of the most immediate needs for revision or amendment to local insurance laws, and accordingly he urges enactment of the attached bill. Sincerely yours, GRAHAM W. WATT, A BILL To improve the laws relating to the regulation of insurance in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "District of Columbia Insurance Act." TITLE I-DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POST-ASSESSMENT INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION ACT SEC. 101. This title shall be known and may be cited as the District of Columbia Insurance Guaranty Association Act. SEC. 102. The purpose of this title is to provide a mechanism for the payment of covered claims under certain insurance policies to avoid excessive delay in payment and to avoid financial loss to claimants or policyholders because of the |